ZIP code
29801
in Aiken, South CarolinaPopulation 31,108
45.88/ 100
Ranked #21,472 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 33%)
Ranked #224 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 46%)
Ranked #22 of 43 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC ZIPs (bottom 49%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Elder-services access
0.33 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.18 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
346 units
in the top 7.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.2%
in the bottom 7.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST31stUS7thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.51 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 8.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Physician access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 11.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS88thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.33 per 1,000 residents
in the top 12.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS88thDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 29801, one of several in Aiken, South Carolina, overall, ranks in the bottom 33% nationally (21,472nd) and the bottom 46% of South Carolina (224th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: elder services lies in the top 4.1% nationally, and mental-health providers stands in the top 5.0% nationally. Distance to an emergency room rests at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Subsidized affordable housing registers in the top 7.0% nationally, and modeled arsenic resides in the bottom 7.0% nationally. Outpatient settles in the top 7.6% nationally. Distance to a community health center is at the national minimum, shared with about 23% of ZIPs. Physicians sits in the top 11.7% nationally, and pharmacy lands in the top 12.0% nationally. On the other side, modeled industrial-pollution burden lies in the top 8.9% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Subsidized affordable housing is the main federal tax-credit program (HUD) funding affordable rental housing, counted as local units it supports. ZIP 29803, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 56%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 48%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 31%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 25%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 35%
11%
Disability
healthier than 23%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 64%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 52%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 41%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 51%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 43%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 51%
8%
Disability
healthier than 42%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
14%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 74%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 45%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 52%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 60%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 45%
8%
Disability
healthier than 45%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 19%
14%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 75.3 ± 0.9 years. A median household income of $59,573 predicts 78.0 years — 2.8 years below.
Ranked #3,825 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
29129
South Carolinashares a border
Score 43.94
Closest healthier
29803
South Carolinashares a border
Score 59.60
Similar health profile
29203
South Carolina95% similar profile
Score 39.04
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 30.4% | 27.9–32.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 41.8% | 38.8–44.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.6% | 7.9–9.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.9% | 7.1–8.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.9% | 8.1–10.0 |
| Depression among adults | 22.9% | 20.3–25.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.2% | 14.5–18.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.2% | 34.3–40.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.0% | 32.8–41.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.0% | 4.6–5.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 19.4% | 16.5–22.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.8% | 12.1–15.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.2% | 80.1–84.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.2% | 79.7–84.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.2% | 84.6–87.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.0% | 63.9–71.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 55.8% | 52.6–58.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.4% | 70.2–81.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 12.1–16.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.6% | 13.9–17.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.8% | 27.7–34.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.5% | 35.3–43.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 24.8% | 22.5–27.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.4–19.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.6% | 14.1–17.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.1% | 14.6–18.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.7% | 31.5–38.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.6% | 6.8–8.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.0% | 10.0–12.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.7% | 16.9–20.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.7% | 5.3–6.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.6% | 7.0–8.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.7% | 23.8–29.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 23.3% | 20.8–25.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 16.5% | 14.6–18.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.1% | 15.2–19.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 10.3–12.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.4% | 29.9–37.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 11.9% | 10.5–13.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 21.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 15.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 29.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 7.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 9.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 66.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 45.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 21.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 40.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $59,573 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $174,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $1,059 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $950 ($678–$1,545) n=343 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.3 yr ± 0.48 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 76.3 yr (73.2–79.9) n=389 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.48 years of 75.3, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured